What does the 2A really mean?

[beardman2]

alright this was brought up in another thread I'm just providing a place for it.

Delija brought up that he feels the 2A is being miss interpreted. So Delija would you please expand on that?

[PackerfanXD]

Yes, Delija; we're all waiting.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by beardman2

alright this was brought up in another thread I'm just providing a place for it.

Delija brought up that he feels the 2A is being miss interpreted. So Delija would you please expand on that?

Originally Posted by PackerfanXD

Yes, Delija; we're all waiting.

LOL...why not make it a bit easier on me, and tell me what YOU think it means, and what you have inferred that I think it means that is different.

You are asking me to explain something I already said I was not qualified to do. I can only go by the law of the land, which, when it comes to the Constitution, is determined by the Supreme Court. (And not the NRA - who, by the way, does not stand for the right of individuals to own true weapons of war). My going along with the Supreme Court's view in what way makes you think I believe the 2A is being "miss interpreted" (sic) ?

I'll be glad to "debate" this issue from any side you wish. It is just as easy for me to argue one side as the other since I don't know how to definitively argue the issue one way or the other. It would all be an exercise in thought, not belief, since it is unreasonable to believe some aspects of what the Second Amendment is construed to mean by some - the David Koresh's of the world, and worse.

I will stand by my remarks that it is ridiculous to believe that the right to bear arms (those we are permitted to have) is, in today's world, a viable way to enable the citizens (organized or not) to hold off a tyrannical government with it's weapons of war. If you think differently, I'd love to know how this would be possible. I have been to war, and that was more than 35 years ago....today's weapons are far more effective. Still, what we had in 1970 would have been completely impervious to any kind of weapon any sane or rational person would (legally) keep for defense (either self defense, or for defense against a tyrannical government's military). Now if you believe that the right to bear arms means that individual citizens should be allowed to keep nuclear weapons, heavy artillery, missiles, tanks, etc....then that is a whole different argument. But even so, would it really be effective at preserving a free democracy against an evil government?

It is one thing to throw tea into Boston harbor to protest a tax. It is quite another to set off an atomic bomb for ANY reason. But still...I defer to you initiating a "debate" if that is really what you want.

Peace,
D.

[beardman2]

Originally Posted by Delija

LOL...why not make it a bit easier on me, and tell me what YOU think it means, and what you have inferred that I think it means that is different.

You are asking me to explain something I already said I was not qualified to do. I can only go by the law of the land, which, when it comes to the Constitution, is determined by the Supreme Court. (And not the NRA - who, by the way, does not stand for the right of individuals to own true weapons of war). My going along with the Supreme Court's view in what way makes you think I believe the 2A is being "miss interpreted" (sic) ?

I'll be glad to "debate" this issue from any side you wish. It is just as easy for me to argue one side as the other since I don't know how to definitively argue the issue one way or the other. It would all be an exercise in thought, not belief, since it is unreasonable to believe some aspects of what the Second Amendment is construed to mean by some - the David Koresh's of the world, and worse.

I will stand by my remarks that it is ridiculous to believe that the right to bear arms (those we are permitted to have) is, in today's world, a viable way to enable the citizens (organized or not) to hold off a tyrannical government with it's weapons of war. If you think differently, I'd love to know how this would be possible. I have been to war, and that was more than 35 years ago....today's weapons are far more effective. Still, what we had in 1970 would have been completely impervious to any kind of weapon any sane or rational person would (legally) keep for defense (either self defense, or for defense against a tyrannical government's military). Now if you believe that the right to bear arms means that individual citizens should be allowed to keep nuclear weapons, heavy artillery, missiles, tanks, etc....then that is a whole different argument. But even so, would it really be effective at preserving a free democracy against an evil government?

It is one thing to throw tea into Boston harbor to protest a tax. It is quite another to set off an atomic bomb for ANY reason. But still...I defer to you initiating a "debate" if that is really what you want.

Peace,
D.

I guess your right. There are two questions there. Number one for you seems to be could a effective revolution be mounted? My answer would be not without HEAVY losses. The fact is we are no where near one. I don't see it for a loooong time to come. Because I feel it is so unlikely it seems a little silly to debate if it would work. We would be guessing at how much of the country would be involved and how our volunteer army would respond. Under the right conditions I think it would work. Then again it takes the US getting really bad before there would even be a snowballs chance in hell of there being one let alone one of any size.

The second question is what does the 2A give us the right too? IMHO anything an infantryman would use. To me that would mean full auto etc. Pretty much anything that one person could carry. I am all for instant background checks and on the higher powered stuff I see no real problem with the longer FBI approval. I see no need to the silly tax stamp although I have no problem with a modest fee for the more extensive check. The constitution has very clearly defined situations in which someones rights can be taken away. I see now reason to not as quickly as possible do that check. I do not think a database or registry should be kept. There are no other lists of how many times and in what way other rights are exercised.

What about nukes tanks etc? I'm not sure any of those would fit with an individual warrior so no they should not be allowed.

I'm about to leave work so I may have to clarify my point a little better later tonight.

[PackerfanXD]

Originally Posted by beardman2

The second question is what does the 2A give us the right too? IMHO anything an infantryman would use. To me that would mean full auto etc. Pretty much anything that one person could carry. I am all for instant background checks and on the higher powered stuff I see no real problem with the longer FBI approval. I see no need to the silly tax stamp although I have no problem with a modest fee for the more extensive check. The constitution has very clearly defined situations in which someones rights can be taken away. I see now reason to not as quickly as possible do that check. I do not think a database or registry should be kept. There are no other lists of how many times and in what way other rights are exercised.

That's about right in my book.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by PackerfanXD

That's about right in my book.

Good, we all agree.

Peace,
D.

[sloopy70]

whats 2A?

[griz]

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised inthe United States."

Noah Webster 1787
"An Examinatin into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution"

The 2A (2nd Amendment) is the one RIGHT that guarantees ALL the others laid forth by our forefathers in our Constitution. What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is up for interpretation? The mere definition of SHALL and SHALL NOT does not allow for exceptions, period. Without the 2A, there will be no final check to encroaching tyranny.

There is NO room for interpretation. It is what it is.

[one-eyed-fatman]

Shut the Warp drive engines down Scotty! She's going to BLOW!

[beardman2]

Originally Posted by Delija

Good, we all agree.

Peace,
D.

well crap. I for one didn't understand what you meant then Delija. False alarm boys!